Washington is gearing up for another round of the "war on women," as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on Hobby Lobby's legal challenge to the HHS mandate in March.

The last time around, in 2012, partisan forces effectively re-framed opposition to both the contraception mandate and abortion as a "war on women." Will that strategy work again, or will those who view the mandate as a threat to religious freedom win this round?

In a column today in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer offered his strategy for diffusing the hysteria and winning the debate, with the mid-term elections looming ahead.

Be advised: some elements of Krauthammer's plan will not sit well with pro-lifers.

1. Stay on message.

Opponants of the HHS mandatae and abortion need to avoid making confusing, "weird" comments that light up the blogsphere in unhelpful ways. There may be a double-standard at work, but pro-life legislators need to accept that fact and stay on point. Krauthammer cites Mike Huckabee's recent remarks as a case study in what not to do.

2. Stick to policy.

"And there’s a good policy question to be asked about the contraceptive mandate (even apart from its challenge to religious freedom). It’s about priorities. By what moral logic does the state provide one woman with co-pay-free contraceptives while denying the same subvention to another woman when she urgently needs antibiotics for her sick child?"

3. On abortion -- seize the "high ground."

"Focus on the horror of late-term abortion — and get it banned.

Last year’s Kermit Gosnell trial was a seminal moment. The country was shown a baby butcher at work and national sentiment was nearly unanimous. Abortion-rights advocates ran away from Gosnell. But they can’t hide from the issue.

And the issue, as most succinctly defined by the late liberal Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is infanticide. Describing one form of late-term abortion known as partial-birth, Moynihan said: “I had once remarked that the procedure was too close to infanticide. And now we have testimony that it is not just too close to infanticide, it is infanticide.” How else to describe crushing the infant’s skull in mid-delivery before the head leaves the birth canal?"

4. Don't try to ban early abortions.

"Unlike late-term abortions, where there are clearly two human beings involved, there is no such agreement regarding, say, a six-week-old embryo.

There remains profound disagreement as to whether, at this early stage, the fetus has acquired personhood or, to put it more theologically, ensoulment. The disagreement is understandable, given that the question is a matter of faith.

This doesn’t mean that abortion opponents should give up. But regarding early abortions, the objective should be persuasion — creating some future majority — rather than legislative coercion in the absence of a current majority. These are the constraints of a democratic system.

Not so regarding a third- or late-second-trimester abortion. Here we are dealing with a child that could potentially live on its own — if not killed first. And killing it, for any reason other than to save the mother’s life, is an abomination. Outlawing that — state by state and nationally, as was done with partial birth abortion in 2003 — should be the focus of any Republican’s position on abortion."

Then, Krauthammer stepped back and explained how his approach would work in practice. Take Wendy Davis' filibuster and the battle to ban late-term abortions in Texas.

"A test case for this kind of policy-oriented political strategy is the governor’s race in Texas: Wendy Davis, the Democratic candidate, has a complicated personal history. Stop talking about it. (Her capacity for veracity is a legitimate issue, but for God’s sake why go into her parenting choices? That’s a snare and a distraction.) Talk policy — specifically, the issue that brought Davis to national prominence.

What was her 11-hour filibuster about? Blocking a state law whose major feature was outlawing abortions beyond 20 weeks. Make that the battlefield. Make Davis explain why she chose not just to support late-term abortion but to make it her great cause."

I agree with Krauthammer's prudent advice for lawmakers tempted to plunge into the HHS mandate or abortion debate without thinking through their message.

But what about his suggestion that pro-lifers should execute a strategic retreat from an absolutist position on abortion?

I believe it would be a mistake to follow his counsel. On principle, most opponents of abortion will reject that suggestion outright. And on a practical level. the steady inroads of pro-life legislators in parts of the country offer a compelling argument for staying the course. At the same time, we can certainly give priority to efforts that ban late-term abortion.

Krauthhammer suggests we follow the playbook for banning partial birth abortion, but pro-life Senate leaders who led that fight on Capitol Hill never argued that we should give up on overturning Roe. Rather, their effort was understood to be an incremental strategy for securing the ultimate prize. It was a two-track approach, and that strategy is still sound.

We will be hearing from others on this topic. And in the meantime, let's keep in mind that the public has begun to understand the threat posed by the HHS mandate, with polls signaling a shift in opinion.

The Prince of Peace has created a Church through which he continues to teach, sanctify and govern today—and through his Church he has taught the above passages which I have quoted. Anyone can read and judge for themselves.

Posted by Norm on Thursday, Feb, 6, 2014 11:54 AM (EDT):

I don’t believe the Prince of Peace approves of executing people or building nukes. This is an idea I cannot budge on whether or not moral law does not technically ban them. Here is another one.

Don’t torture people

This is something that many Catholics and Christians for that matter have been too ok with in the last decade.

Posted by Larry on Thursday, Feb, 6, 2014 10:57 AM (EDT):

Catholic teaching on the 7 items given by Norm is absolute in 5 of the seven, but regarding nuclear weapons, the Catechism says the following:

2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.“109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. the arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;110 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

The above obviously does NOT say that nuclear weapons are to be banned—unlike with abortion, for example. On the death penalty, the moral law does NOT ban it outright—the Catechism gives a more nuanced teaching:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

Posted by mrscracker on Thursday, Feb, 6, 2014 10:20 AM (EDT):

Norm,
I agree. Thank you.

Posted by Norm on Wednesday, Feb, 5, 2014 7:27 PM (EDT):

I can’t be partially pro-life.

Pro Life Positions:
Don’t abort babies
Don’t build nukes
Don’t execute people
Help the immigrant
Care for the sick
Give to the poor
Care for God’s creation

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 3:23 PM (EDT):

Andy,
I’m skeptical about all sides in politics.And while I support a social program safety net, in the long run we’ve messed up the family structure in America by replacing dad with govt handouts. And I’m speaking as someone whose family once received food stamps.
I don’t think either side has an answer right now that actually benefits women.And as a woman, I’m tired of being relegated to some special interest/victim class.Women need to think for themselves and resist being a pawn in political pandering.
God bless.

Posted by Antonia on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 1:53 PM (EDT):

Mrscracker: Yes, I agree… it’s a starting point.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 1:40 PM (EDT):

Larry: *Facepalm*

Posted by Larry on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 1:28 PM (EDT):

“The life-loving GOP has just voted to cut unemployment for the long-term unemployed and cut SNAP assistance.” And who’s responsible for the “long-term unemployed” being unemployed for the “long-term,” but you folks and your insane tax-and-spend economic policies that are keeping this economy depressed year after year after year? You’re contriving to keep Jane’s husband unemployed as long as you can so that you can win the couple over with endless “benefits”, such as abortion, that we don’t have the money for and cannot afford in the long run. If Jane’s husband ever did get a job, you couldn’t use him any more for your political gain, could you? That’s what YOU’RE afraid of.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 12:58 PM (EDT):

MrsCracker, the issue on this thread was whether the GOP is anti-women, and my point has been that this accusation has substantial truth to it. The truth of that charge is borne out by journalists like Krauthammer, who has been an advocate of conservative causes (not pro-life, just conservative) since his days at the liberalish New Republic in the 80’s. I’ve followed him pretty closely over the years; he has gotten more neo-con over the years, and really went hard right during Bush-2. As someone who voted for Reagan twice and believed the GOP’s rhetoric about fighting abortion for many years, I finally concluded the GOP has no interest in pro-life issues; the GOP’s bread-and-butter is economics, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy and shredding the safety net.
As you know, it’s hard in this culture to argue that contraceptives and abortion are anti-woman policies, but when those policies get linked with GOP economic policies—which *are* anti-woman and anti-family—then the pro-life cause gets linked in the public’s mind with those same anti-family policies (especially when pro-lifers insist on aligning themselves with GOP economic policy). Catholic pro-lifers, instead of leading the GOP back to shore with sane (i.e., Catholic) economic policy, has been led out to sea by insane GOP economics. As I said earlier, the GOP will continue to nod its head to the pro-life movement as long as those checks keep clearing.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 12:37 PM (EDT):

Andy,
I’m not really concerned with the politically divisive stuff.That’s partly what’s wrong with America right now.Instead of finding consensus we slap labels on people.
Why not look at someone like Charles Krauthammer & see what’s good? It’s no more productive to refer to him and “his ilk”, than the knee-jerk reactions we see from the right.
And, seriously, much of what he’s written isn’t especially conservative.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 11:22 AM (EDT):

Larry, you’re thick as a brick. Let’s see if I can make it more clear: Let’s say there’s a woman, let’s call her Jane. Jane has two children, ages 2 and 4. Jane is married, but her husband has been out of work for over a year. The life-loving GOP has just voted to cut unemployment for the long-term unemployed and cut SNAP assistance. Jane and her family’s income has now been cut dramatically. Jane discovers she is also pregnant; what would normally be good news is now anxiety-generating news. Jane gets an abortion. Jane was a mother *before* the abortion, she was a *mother* during her pregnancy, and she continued being a mother to two, young, alive children *after* the abortion. Do you get the scenario?

Posted by Larry on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 11:13 AM (EDT):

“...Women with children (also known as “mothers” to most of us) are the ones most likely to get abortions.” Thank you for helping me make my point—that you are in denial of the fact that mothers are the ONLY people getting abortions, because abortion is only POSSIBLE for a mother. A woman with no children at all obviously isn’t pregnant, and therefor doesn’t want, and cannot get an abortion.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 10:58 AM (EDT):

Many Catholics, instead of leading the GOP back to shore with Catholic social teaching on economics and the poor, are led by the GOP out to the sea of Republican/Libertarian economics.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 10:51 AM (EDT):

A majority of Americans think late-term abortions should be banned or at last severely restricted. This reality of American abortion politics is why die-hard Republicans like Krauthammer exploit the issue: he sees it as a potential vote-getter for Republican candidates. The tougher reality is with first-term abortions, which comprise 80+% of all abortions and which a majority of Americans think should *not* be restricted in any significant way. (In this regard—favoring abortion rights early on but favoring restrictions later—Americans are like most of the rest of the world.) This has been a vote-loser for Republican candidates, and so Krauthammer doesn’t want pro-lifers to press that issue. The problem is that pro-lifers get on board with the GOP on late-term abortions, but then stay on board for the GOP economic platform—which is what Krauthammer and his ilk want—not realizing how counter-productive GOP economics is to the pro-life cause (It never ceases to amaze me how so many pro-life Catholics have adopted GOP economic policies that are directly contradicted by Catholic social teaching.) But pro-lifers need to understand that the GOP couldn’t care less about abortion; it’s merely a means of fleecing pro-life wallets.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 10:23 AM (EDT):

Antonia,
Mr. Krauthammer, who is not Catholic, can at least agree with us that late term abortions are a terrible thing & should be restricted. That’s a starting point.

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 10:02 AM (EDT):

Of course Krauthammer’s pro-choice! He’s one of the most cynical journalists in the business. He’s the poster child for what I’ve been saying for years: the GOP makes common cause with pro-lifers, not b/c the GOP is pro-life but b/c pro-life money is green.

Posted by Antonia on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 4:27 AM (EDT):

A quick look on the web has turned up evidence that Charles Krauthammer is PRO-CHOICE. In addition to the Wikipedia entry on him which says he is pro-choice, he said in a 2005 Washington Post article, “I happen to be a supporter of legalized abortion.” A 2007 LifeNews.com article called him a “leading pro-abortion columnist.” That same LifeNews.com article does report that Krauthammer would like to see the issue decided by voters in each state rather than by judicial fiat, and as we know he does strongly oppose late-term abortions, but the article went on to say that he had voted in favor of legal abortion in Maryland. The Wiki article on Krauthammer also says he supports embryonic stem-cell research. So he has a slightly nuanced pro-choice position, as far as I can tell. Although he may have changed his views since the articles I found, I just wanted to raise a caution about taking advice on pro-life issues from someone who may very well be pro-choice. Links to the articles cited above: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091502141.html

http://www.lifenews.com/2007/05/11/nat-3113/

Posted by Andy on Tuesday, Feb, 4, 2014 1:04 AM (EDT):

Larry, Tom: I get that sanctimoniousness is your preferred language, but let’s stick with the topic at hand: why the GOP is perceived as being anti-woman. Larry, you first: my point, which you refuse to acknowledge—and which refusal is a cause for the GOP losing elections—is that women with children (also known as “mothers” to most of us) are the ones most likely to get abortions. And the reason these “mothers” get abortions is b/c of financial pressures.
Tom: your turn now. These “mothers” (i.e., women with children, since there seems to be some confusion as to what this term means) aren’t getting abortions b/c they’re getting food stamps; they’re getting abortions b/c of economic straits. Blaming food stamps for abortions is like blaming ice cream for burglaries—both go up in the summer time, so ice cream must cause burglaries, right? No, warm weather is the common bond between ice cream consumption and burglaries both increasing in the summer, just like economic pressure is the condition where women seek both financial assistance *and* abortions.
So, when one of the countries’ major political parties wants to cut food stamps, unemployment insurance, and other safety net programs, it is reasonable—if not entirely fair, perhaps—to conclude that that party is, in fact, waging a war on women. You may not like it, and it may not be entirely fair, but it’s not as if the charge is groundless.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 11:51 PM (EDT):

@Andy: Do you think that strawman you’re arguing with can talk back? Does it tell you to do things? One hesitates to ask what other relations you substitute effigies for people in.
-
If you knew the first thing about statistics, you would know that, if two things strongly correlate, it does, in fact, indicate that one does not prevent the other. And, as you were attempting to assert that opposition to welfare was anti-family and, by implication, pro-abortion, the fact that welfare recipients are THE most likely to procure abortions (and otherwise have the worst families of any demographic) does, in fact, refute your point. Welfare is not good for families; therefore opposition to it is the logical course for anyone who regards families as good.
-
You can deny the mountains of evidence that the welfare state has not merely completely failed to help those it was intended for, but has actively harmed them; you can deny the Holocaust, too. But either way, you’re a nasty little liar denying obvious facts in the name of wholly-discredited ideology.
-
I don’t have to dignify your froth-mouthed lying rants and wholly unwarranted smugness with any further replies.

Posted by Larry on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 10:36 PM (EDT):

“I thought my point was pretty obvious from the context.” It was indeed obvious. A mother, in your estimation, is a woman whose children are postpartum. You don’t consider the mother of an unborn child to BE a mother—because you don’t consider an unborn child to be a child. I read you very clearly—more clearly than you’d like. It is also obvious what utter buffoons you consider us to be—obvious from the discredited propaganda you’ve been trying to jam down our throats. What is not obvious to you is that it’s not working—that your efforts to pull conservative Catholics into the Democratic camp are doomed to failure. I suspect you’ve been assigned this task by others—and it’s going to be a supremely frustrating effort.

Posted by Sam on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 10:08 PM (EDT):

@Karen, you are mistaken, the Church teaches the equality of dignity in males or females. The Church does not discriminate against men by denying their capacity to gestate babies. A difference in ability is inconsequential to equality in value. The position you are advancing is a fallacy of equivocation.

@Joan Frawley Desmond - I agree with your point to not follow Krauthhammer’s retreat. Further, it is not strictly a matter of faith that a human person is present from conception onward. Scientists have testified to the genetic totality of a human being from conception. This is empirical data that supports any faith position on personhood from conception. A supporter of abortion has to say that biology and ensoulment operate at different speeds, which is an unempirical position

Posted by Andy on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 7:54 PM (EDT):

Larry: I didn’t realize you were such a concrete thinker; pardon me for giving you too much credit. I guess I should have said that 60% of the women who obtained abortions had children *already* when they chose to abort. I thought my point was pretty obvious from the context.

Posted by Larry on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 7:47 PM (EDT):

“...Roughly 60% of women who obtained abortions in 2009 were mothers.” Wrong, Andy. 100% of them were mothers.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 6:30 PM (EDT):

Tom, Abortions and being a mother are also highly correleated: Among women who obtained abortions in 2009, 46.3% had one or two prior live births and 13.6% had three or more prior live births.
(http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/). This means that roughly 60% of women who obtained abortions in 2009 were mothers. I’m guessing that, for the sake of consistency, you’re also for outlawing motherhood?

Posted by Tom in AZ on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 6:12 PM (EDT):

@Andy: Where did I call you any names? I said you were repeating partisan talking-points by rote, wholly unexamined. That would be because you were repeating partisan talking points by rote, wholly unexamined.
-
As for your “points”...when a person claims that welfare constitutes a pro-family policy, and opposition to it is anti-family, they have reached a degree of delusion that dashes past 9/11 Trutherism into full-on Holocaust denial. The utter annihilation of the Black family is solely and exclusively the result of welfare programs—and your strange belief that welfare would reduce abortions is counter-demonstrated by the fact that welfare-receipt and abortion are highly correlated (hence why I say “Holocaust denial”, except a lot more people have died in abortion—while the vast majority of their mothers were on welfare—than in the Holocaust).
-
Maybe I would argue with you more seriously if you would stop saying flatly counter-factual things. Can you form an argument that isn’t just a bunch of slogans and stereotypes (“angry, old white men”)?

Posted by Larry on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 6:09 PM (EDT):

Pure fiction. Abortion hasn’t been “kept out” of Obamacare. It’s just provided indirectly instead of directly. And the contraceptive coverage includes abortifacients. There aren’t any pro-life Democrats. There are Democrats who SAY they are pro-life in order to get elected to the Democratic ticket. But once in Congress, they do as they are told—and not by the voters, either. If they really were pro-life they wouldn’t be able to stomach being a part of the Democratic Party for one more second.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 5:36 PM (EDT):

Larry: The pro-life movement does, in fact, benefit from Democrats. It was pro-life Democrats, without *any* support (not a single vote) from the supposed pro-life GOP, who kept abortion out of the ACA. It was pro-life Democrats who forced Obama to sign an executive order explicilty banning federal funds to be used for abortion under the ACA. So, yeah, Democrats do benefit the pro-life movement. There’s also the bigger picture that Democratic economic policies ease the economic burdens that underly so many abortions.

Posted by Larry on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 5:25 PM (EDT):

“Larry: The pro-life movement does not benefit from the current GOP.” And they DO benefit from the Democrats? Don’t make me laugh. “Krauthammer is not a friend of the pro-life movement.” What do I care? I’m not a particular fan of his.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 5:19 PM (EDT):

Hey Tim—didja see Jeff’s comment? This is why the GOP loses elections: Let’s blame women for abortions! Heck, let’s declare “war” on those “evil women.” In the process, let’s ignore the fact that roughly 80% of the women who get abortions are poor and already have children, and that economics is the chief motivator for these women to obtain them. Then let’s look and see which political party never misses a chance to further shred the social safety net. The GOP is not pro-life; it’s pro-money for the wealthy.

Posted by Jeff on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 4:36 PM (EDT):

There should be a “war” against evil women who wittingly or unwittingly kill babies. The war is for their hearts and minds.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 3:53 PM (EDT):

Antonia ,
I don’t know Mr. Krauthammer’s views completely, but I heard him say on TV that late term abortions are an abomination.That’s fairly strong language.
Where he stands on other life issues, I’m not sure.

Posted by Tim on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 2:59 PM (EDT):

@Andy “The GOP will continue to draw from its base—angry, old white guys.”

Democrats do nothing but use division to gain power and they will say anything to bring it about. Pope Francis hasn’t brought Andy one inch closer to working together. He will never defend the faith except when it helps him forward his political agenda. As far as what the Republicans should do, that is up to their party. It is very diverse with many opinions. I do think we should hear more about Mary from the church. It would be good to hear more about adoption; children orphaned waiting for a family adoption. The pro-life groups are doing well they should continue what they are doing.

Posted by Carlos Lavastida on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 2:19 PM (EDT):

“I think Mr. Krauthammer’s very wise in this.”

So do I…he is refreshing a lesson learned 20 years ago (the focus on state rather than federal limits on abortion; which has worked when few would have agreed)refocused on winable federal issues.

CL

Posted by Antonia on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 2:11 PM (EDT):

I think that Charles Krauthammer is pro-choice. I read that on Wikipedia (so please take it with a grain of salt). If he is pro-choice, we should of course weigh his opinions very carefully on this topic.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 1:01 PM (EDT):

Larry: The pro-life movement does not benefit from the current GOP. Krauthammer is not a friend of the pro-life movement. He advocates for anti-family policies that actually encourage abortions.

Posted by Larry on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 11:49 AM (EDT):

“Larry: Obama’s poll numbers are inching back up…” So you agree that they crashed after the disastrous website malfunction and the exposure of his “you can keep it” lie. This of course destroys your claim that only the “thirty percent” are concerned about the above. “...But his numbers aren’t the issue.” I take it you’re familiar with the term “whistling past the graveyard.” You go on, “The issue—as I’ve tried to be clear about—is that the GOP platform is fundamentally anti-family.” Now you’re frantically changing the subject—showing your side’s desperation. I hope for your sake you’re not a Congressional Democrat up for re-election in November.

Posted by Andy on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 10:52 AM (EDT):

Larry: Obama’s poll numbers are inching back up, but his numbers aren’t the issue. The issue—as I’ve tried to be clear about—is that the GOP platform is fundamentally anti-family. Given the grinding pressure the GOP attempts to put on struggling families, it’s an impossibly hard sell that further restrictions on abortion and/or contraception are pro-familiy. I agree with Mrscracker that the U.S. is an outlier in the world re: abortion restrictions, but I’m afraid that reality is going to continue until the GOP modifies its frightening anti-family economic policies and begins to make common cause with Democrats on things like unemployment insurance, SNAP, tax policy, etc.. Few people, including me, see the GOP’s anti-abortion rhetoric as being sincere; most see it as a way to soak money out of the wallets of pro-lifers or as part of a “war on women.” Having met some real Neanderthal Republicans in my day, I’m inclined to give the “war on women” rhetoric credence more than most at the NCR.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 10:25 AM (EDT):

I think Mr. Krauthammer’s very wise in this.
If we can restrict abortion by days or weeks, we’ve made huge progress. Even most European nations have more humane laws re. abortion than we do.It’s been like the Wild West here in the States.While well meaning folk try to enact laws to protect life from the moment of conception, a mother can still travel to a late term abortionist to snuff out the life of a viable child.
I’m Catholic,completely pro-life, no exceptions, but after 40 yrs of Roe vs Wade, we have to start at viability & work our way backwards.Otherwise we’ll never have consensus or make progress.And I mean that solely in a practical,political sense, nothing to do with altering Church teaching.

Posted by Tim on Monday, Feb, 3, 2014 8:52 AM (EDT):

“If Mother Mary is the Queen….Why not women be queens…. likewise? “

Mary is Queen of heaven. While being at the foot of the cross she never abandoned Christ. She could have been resentful and hateful and let her emotions take over. But she didn’t. She stood by Christ and I am glad of it. In her we find the answer to the war on woman. Look towards Mary. All the answers are found within her. Democrats will say anything to distort and destroy Mary. But she still is the answer. We are sinful and are in need of forgiveness. We must look forward to a community full of redemption and joy. Mothers are always willing to pick up children when they fall. Mary is the Queen of all!

@Karen : “....your church’s most basic belief is that women are inferior.”

The Church does not subscribe to the idea of inferiority. You are very much mistaken. Women as of today have a different role to play in the Church. But it can Change. Mary the Mother of the Lord was QUEEN of the Apostles. Apostleship includes Priesthood.

Priesthood mostly excludes Apostleship in practice. Consequence of too much Philosophy, Theology….relativisation of the Word of God.

Priesthood is found also in non-Christian Religions. Dividing Priesthood from Apostleship is a pagan enterprise. Hence some aspect of the Church is dwindling and dying.

If Mother Mary is the Queen….Why not women be queens…. likewise? Who prevents them? You? And Mary Magdalne is “Apostle to the Apostles”. And you Who? Who prevents you from being an Apostle?

Mere arguments, exercise of sort of muscle power, play of words won’t achieve anything worthwhile. But following and obeying Jesus the Lord in the Church can bring about any miraculous change.

One who loves Jesus the Lord and is willing to follow him with the Cross anything is possible. He makes it possible.

Posted by Larry on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 11:49 PM (EDT):

“My point is no one *cares* about what you’re saying except the 30% base.” You know better than that. You can read the free-falling poll numbers for the president. You can feel the Democrats in both the Senate and House trembling in their boots when they think about this year’s elections.

Posted by Andy on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 10:49 PM (EDT):

Tom: i notice you don’t address any of Joan’s points or my responses. You just call me names. The sad fact of the matter is that the current GOP has NOTHING to offer. That ‘s not a good state of affairs, it’s a sorry state of affairs.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 10:06 PM (EDT):

@Andy: You are spouting, absolutely uncritically, DNC talking points. Your responses are as rote as a chatbot or a parrot; you barely address any specific point in any of the replies, but stick far too closely to script.
-
I don’t much care, but you accusing ANYONE of just spouting partisan talking points is not even the pot calling the kettle black, it’s the pot calling the spoon a cooking vessel.

Posted by Marcus on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 9:16 PM (EDT):

<B> WE SHOULD ALSO STRESS THAT IT IS A WAR ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM”

That is also easy to substantiate as well as there are enough proofs of it.

We could make a video that goes something like: The President has declared war on our religious rights and our religious freedom.

You could have placards that read : RESISTING THE STATE’S MOVE TO OPPRESS CHRISTIANS.

Posted by Andy on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 9:14 PM (EDT):

Larry: My point is no one *cares* about what you’re saying except the 30% base. The GOP platform is almost literally an echo chamber these days. Six million people now have access to medical care who didn’t before. Stupid things that Obama said are becoming increasingly irrelevant to most people—except that 30% base. Go Hawks!

Posted by Marcus on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 9:11 PM (EDT):

WE NEED TO CLAIM THE CATCH CRY “WAR ON WOMEN”

The only way we can win is if we turn this around and show that it is the HHS mandate that has declared a A WAR ON WOMEN.

It is a no-brainer and easy to do because it is very logical and it is the truth. So if we are serious, that is what we should do. Put that big on the placard. People will start asking and arguing and then we can make the case.

The best defence is a good offence. If we are always trying to regain our balance on the backfoot, then we will never make any advances.

Posted by Larry on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 5:12 PM (EDT):

Only a Democratic Party operative would write such nonsense, Andy. The fact is that the president said over and over, “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” He didn’t say, “if I like your plan, you can keep it,” but he should have, because that is exactly what he meant. You admit of course that “many people” have lost policies—you cannot deny that without making a laughingstock of yourself. But you cover yourself by saying the lost policies were “crappy.” The problem is, the president did not specify ahead of time that the policies had to exceed a standard of “crappiness” in order for people to be allowed to keep them—and neither he nor you can walk that back by saying, “well, the public should have understood that their policies would have to meet a very exacting set of criteria [which would have ruled out nearly all of the existing policies, rendering the president’s pledge nothing but a mass of doubletalk.]” It won’t work, Andy. It’s not working, as opinion polls are clearly showing.

Posted by Andy on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 4:57 PM (EDT):

Larry: you’re repeating a Republican talking point that no one, excep the 30% GOP base, believes. Your comment illustrates why Republicans keep losing elections: denial of reality and misinformation. The denial of reality is that many millions who were previously uninsured now have insurnace; some of it is Medicaid, to be sure, but it’s expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. The misinformation is that many people who “lost” insurnace lost crappy policies—policies with low caps, high co-pays, coverage restrictions and the like. Good riddance to that!

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 3:23 PM (EDT):

Karen, While I don’t disagree with Elizabeth that because Christ was male, the one who stands in His place should be male, I think the real reason is that God has a plan. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. The first woman was created from Adam’s rib, from his side. A Jewish teaching says, “Not from his head to be above him or his foot to be beneath him, but from his side to be beside him.” We are complimentary, but not identical. That’s what the Church believes. In GENERAL, but not always, women have attributes and natures men don’t have and men have attributes and natures women don’t have. Christ was not a rigid sort. He took in the whole picture with the eyes of love and wisdom only God can have. But woman is descended from Eve, so in humility, since Eve was the one to be tempted by the deceiver in the Garden, (even though Adam did very little to fight it), woman should be able to accept that that action had consequences. One consequences of grave disobedience, is not to be the representative of the Lord on the altar. That is a gift of repentance or humility or just self that we give to God, or it is an act of God’s justice that we submit to and that we give to the Lord. It doesn’t mean man is better. It means we take responsibility for the part of our nature that would fall as Eve did - that would listen to the tempter. This same humility or repentance is why any grave sinner should not be on the altar.

Posted by Br. Robert Anthony on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 2:09 PM (EDT):

The issue of women priests is a diversion. Stick to the issue!

The answer to women priests is simple. If God wanted women priests, Jesus would have chosen his mother, who is “nature’s single solitary boast.” Q.E.D.

Again, stick to the issue!

Posted by Al on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 1:46 PM (EDT):

I am in my fifties, and the Catholic Church has had a miserable record
engaging with the political culture
of America and the West in general since I can remember.
“Miserable” in the sense of not having the wisdom (or being
philosophically/theologically restrained from) picking fights that can be won.

A philosophical system that holds that no good can come from any
kind of evil will always waste energy on battlefields like fighting the better
side in the Cold War and castigating the “excesses of capitalism”.

It took a close reading (and re-reading) to accept that JFD is not quite
advocating for same kind of bone-headed approaches that the American
bishops took in the 60s and 70s.

Posted by Larry on Sunday, Feb, 2, 2014 12:01 PM (EDT):

“Part of why the Republican obsession with repealing Obamacare is going to alienate women is b/c roughly 50% of the new enrollees in the ACA will/are women. Why vote for a Party that wants to take your health insurance away, or, in the alternative, make you pay more for it?” It is Obamacare which is taking health insurance away from millions of policyholders right now, and dramatically hiking the price of future coverage—certainly not the Republican Party.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Saturday, Feb, 1, 2014 9:03 PM (EDT):

@Karen: Priests != Jesus. They ACT in the person of Jesus—although the Latin also means “in the mask of Christ”, “persona” is actually the Greek and Latin word for “mask”, not for “person” (it came to mean “person” in the English sense because of Greek drama).
-
Lots of religions restrict the sex of their “personifiers”, which is actually the term in anthropology for a specific kind of priesthood, one where the priest has the god act through them. Korean shamans, at least the ones that channel the gods, are always female, and even the minor roles performed by male shamans are done in women’s clothing. Navajo and Hopi masked dancers are always male.
-
No, it makes no sense to keep rabbis or Protestant preachers as male-only—but those aren’t priests AT ALL, let alone in the Catholic sense. They’re mere scholars and compilers of religious law. The Catholic Church has never restricted women from becoming canon lawyers or leading Bible studies, and that’s all rabbis and preachers do. You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a priest IS, because you think religions are made up by human beings to make them feel and act a certain way. People who think their gods are real don’t act like that.

Posted by Howard on Saturday, Feb, 1, 2014 4:57 PM (EDT):

The last time around, in 2012, we were “helpfully” advised by many “friends” that opposition to the contraception mandate, if it is to mentioned at all, must always be to the contraception MANDATE, never to the CONTRACEPTION mandate. It must be described in terms of the freedom to practice religion, no matter how silly, outdated, and frankly undesirable that practice may be—because it would be bad for the GOP to describe it in terms of universally binding moral consequences of human nature. Yeah, that was a helpful political strategy.

Posted by Elizabeth on Saturday, Feb, 1, 2014 4:29 PM (EDT):

Hi again Karen! Good to hear from you. These are very good (and very tough) questions, and I’m going to do my best to explain them from my perspective. I am by no means the official voice of the Church, although I love her with my whole heart, so there may be a chance that some of my fellows here with more experience will step in to correct me if I’m in error. I welcome that. So first things first. I truly believe that the priesthood is reserved to males. We in the Church need a living image of Christ to guide and serve us as He did, and as Christ was male, so I believe his priests should be. This maybe seems superficial to you if you aren’t Christian, I understand. It’s just something I take on faith that if Christ had wanted to call women as priestly ministers, he would have A. Allowed it to happen in the Old Testament, or B. Come as a woman, or C. Left some specific instructions letting us know that women were to be ordained. He wasn’t too shy about overturning social norms, so I’m confident in my own heart that he would have made the idea of woman-priests known clearly if it was in the cards. However, all does not mean that a priest is in any way equal to God, as you were positing above. Anyone telling you that a human being is equal to God is sadly mistaken. Anyone treating a priest as if he were actually God is an idolater. And any man who says he’s closer to God just by virtue of being male is wrong—-“in the image of God He created them, male AND female he created them.” This presents a problem that I used to struggle with often, and I think (sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth) that it’s the question making you pause now. If God created us equally in his image, why do we have different functions in the Church? The answer is that while we are equally loved by God, we were created for different tasks. These tasks may have more or less earthly ‘power’ or ‘authority’, but that doesn’t mean that any one task is more superior or inferior to another. That kind of paradigm is a flawed social construct. Only seriously arrogant people think authority makes someone better than someone else. God sees what is in the heart, and he equally loves those with temporal authority and those without. A priest and a laywoman both have the same chance at heaven. Do you really believe that having an inferior role in life is what makes one inferior in substance? I don’t think I’m inferior to the President, just because my role as a voter carries less visible power than his. And I don’t think I’m inferior in the Church because I’m not a priest. I see myself as one powerful and powerless woman in a beautiful system of male-female complements. Moms, Dads, priests, nuns, single lay men and women: all of us have things we can contribute that others can’t, and we believe God made it that way so we could all fit together like parts of a body. We call that body ‘Church’ and ‘she’ is a woman, the bride of Christ. If you have further questions following this ramble, I’ll try again to answer. :)

Posted by Karen on Saturday, Feb, 1, 2014 2:31 PM (EDT):

Okay, explain to me how making physical maleness an essential qualification for positions of authority, to the point of actually equating the male principal with God so that no woman can ever be the physical image of God doesn’t state that women are inferior?

How does having an inferior role in life not make women inferior in substance?

Posted by Elizabeth on Saturday, Feb, 1, 2014 1:33 PM (EDT):

@Karen, I am so sorry that you feel that way. I’m sure that I don’t have to tell you that there are scores of Catholic women, myself included, that understand the Church and Her teachings on women to be the polar opposite of what you describe above. I know you have heard our positions stated many times and witnessed our love for the Church and our defense of our beliefs, but if there are any questions that you are still baffled about or seeking to have answered, please feel free to post them here and someone will do their best to answer without judgment. I cannot promise that what we say will satisfy you, or that everyone on this forum will treat you with kindness, but all of us here, you and I included, are human. So in that vein, please also consider that your above comments are hurtful to many human women, and lack the respect that you clearly believe all women deserve. Calling another woman a hypocrite and her deeply held views ‘bilge’ is not constructive, and if you have come here to change hearts and minds, that is not the way to accomplish that task. That being said, you are free to share your deeply held beliefs as well, so I’d love to hear from you again! In case no one else says this to you today, God bless you. Have a good day!

Posted by Karen on Saturday, Feb, 1, 2014 10:12 AM (EDT):

You cannot win the War on Women, since your church’s most basic belief is that women are inferior.

Until you and your like start believing that women are adult human beings with capacities and abilities equal to men, you will always wage war on women. Women cannot be permitted to be anything but cowardly, dimwitted doormats suitably only for incubating floor scrubbing. The fact that you are a woman, who received an education and have a public platform from which you can spread your bilge that prevents other women from rising above the wretched position your church thinks we have to occupy makes you a hypocrite.

And please, don’t insult my intelligence by brining up Mary. Whatever the historical facts of her existence, she isn’t actually here now as a live woman to state her opinion.

Posted by Andy on Saturday, Feb, 1, 2014 12:22 AM (EDT):

Part of why the Republican obsession with repealing Obamacare is going to alienate women is b/c roughly 50% of the new enrollees in the ACA will/are women. Why vote for a Party that wants to take your health insurance away, or, in the alternative, make you pay more for it? And then with immigration—I read a story this week where they quoted an anonymous Republican representative who said the Party has a racist core that just doesn’t want to give citizenship to anyone who’s here illegally. With a growing Hispanic population—50% of which is women—this is going to be another huge problem for getting women’s votes. The GOP will continue to draw from its base—angry, old white guys—until it starts to develop some family-friendly policies

Posted by Andy on Friday, Jan, 31, 2014 10:41 PM (EDT):

The problem for the current GOP is its basic antipathy toward governing. Encouraging readers to find the pony of anti-abortion politics in the huge manure pile of current GOP policy overlooks the two main priorities of the Party: (1) repealing Obamcare, and (2) not doing anything else. Even if the GOP took on banning late-term abortions, it would still be proposing cuts to SNAP (food stamps), unemployment insurance, and other safety net programs that offer a little financial breathing room to pregnant women. If you’re expecting your third or fourth child, and your husband is out of work (or you’re a single mom), your chances of voting for a candidate who wants to take away your husband’s unemployment and cut your food stamps are probably not great. The GOP says it’s not anti-woman, and thinks that it’s anti-contraception, anti-abortion stances are going to attract women; this would be a tough sell under *any* circumstances, but when you combine those stances with its anti-family policies, it’s a recipe for lost elections.

Posted by charles on Friday, Jan, 31, 2014 9:16 PM (EDT):

I agree with the writer of this article. Give priority to that which is most attainable but keep reaching for the ultimate prize which I believe will be attained within the next 10 or so years.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Joan Frawley Desmond, is the Register’s senior editor. She is an award-winning journalist widely published in Catholic, ecumenical and secular media. A graduate of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family, she lives with her family in California..